I read an article written by Grant Scott in the August 2010 edition of Professional Photographer magazine. It was about the loneliness of being a freelance professional photographer.

While at times it seemed like an layman’s guide to depression some of it most definitely struck a chord with me:

As photographers, we do sit in front of our computers staring at the screen wondering who to contact next looking for work and how. We do wonder why nobody replies to our emails, returns our telephone calls or rings us with the perfect job. We do look at other photographers sites, compare our work to theirs and wonder “why are they busy and I am not, what do they have that I have not?”

Without the social elements of an office or studio full of people it is hard to get up every day and motivate yourself to create new reasons for people to come and see you, it is hard to find new clients and it is hard to remain creative and continue the daily slog of self-promotion.

It requires a huge amount of determination, self-belief and stamina to keep going. A photographer works in a profession that requires huge self-belief in ones work and oneself. We have nothing to sell other than our personality and creativity. When either or both are rejected our self-belief takes a battering and the more it happens the more our self-belief declines dramatically. Few of us have anybody close to us that understand the pressures of being a professional photographer.

We try, we desperately want to, give out a successful, positive persona to persuade our prospective clients they are buying into a success story. Thus we lie.

When we are asked how we are doing, how the recession is affecting us and how we are enjoying things at the moment, we lie. We try to juggle the truth; we create two versions of ourselves, the real one and the public face that meets with the client and exudes success wherever and whenever one advertises.

It is a hard act to maintain when you read the photographic press and see the success others are having. It is a hard act to maintain when you see the success your peers are purportedly having. It is a hard act to maintain when in moments of ego and extreme self-belief you compare yourself to the truly successful in the world of photography and know ‘I could have done that.’

There is a subtle difference to the paragraph above and the old joke about photographers; How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? Fifty, one to change the bulb and forty-nine to say “I could have done that!”

Sometimes, if budget and equipment were not an issue some of us really could ‘have done that.’

Sometimes, the editors and creative directors that we as photographers are applying to for work forget that the Crewdson’s, the LaChapelle’s and the Leibovitz’s of the industry are teams of other creatives including assistants, lighting assistants, make-up artists, stylists, post production teams and marketing assistants. They are not freelancers working alone.

In fact, Annie Leibovitz tells a story in her book; At Work, where Dorothy Wilding was employed to photograph The Queen and wasn’t even in the room when the photograph was taken! Apparently Wilding’s assistants, who were trained in her style, often went out and took photographs for her. Often, she wasn’t in the same country. At one time she employed around thirty-seven people in her studio.

In his Professional Photographer article, coincidentally, Grant Scott mentioned a book called ‘Shoot the Damn Dog’. It was written by Sally Brampton, the woman that launched the magazine Elle and then suffered a clinical depression. She recovered (or so she’d thought) and became the editor of Red magazine, a position she was fired from due to ongoing depression. I’ve just finished reading the same book. On page sixty two Sally describes how she felt after being fired:

She felt that her self, her sense of worth and her calling was that of a successful magazine editor. By being fired, by losing her job as an editor of a mainstream magazine she felt that she’d failed at being herself. If she was no longer fit to be an editor then what was her worth? By failing in the role of an editor she herself had failed. What did she have left if her self had been taken away and she had no way forward or way to regain that self?

That struck a chord with me too… If I fail at being a photographer then what do I have left? I define myself as a photographer. I live to be a photographer. If I cannot be a photographer then what do I, myself, have left? I cannot answer the question. I have no answers. I do not see myself as anything but a professional and successful photographer.

For one moment in time, on this blog, I’m going to refuse to lie. The public face is going to be the real face. The real face is going public. Maintaining a show of success where there is none is laborious and wearisome. Trying to maintain momentum and enthusiasm in the midst of a clinical depression is nigh on impossible. Motivation and creativity are all but impossible when you’re this lonely and depressed.

Within the past month I could have and was more than prepared to die, which I would have were it not for a sentence spoken to me. I can truly understand why photographers and other creatives commit suicide.

I did not know them or could ever purport to know what they were thinking at the time but I can sympathise with Diane Arbus, Bob Carlos Clarke, Warren Bolster, Terence Donovan, Pierre Molinier, Francesca Woodman and the many other not so famous unnamed photographers that have committed suicide.

I will leave the last words on suicide to Kevin Carter, a Pulitzer Prize winner. Part of his suicide note read; “I am depressed… without phone… money for rent… money for child support… money for debts… money!!! I am haunted by the vivid memories of killings and corpses and anger and pain… of starving or wounded children, of trigger-happy madmen, often police, of killer executioners… I have gone to join Ken (his recently deceased colleague, Ken Oosterbroek) if I am that lucky.”

I have no idea what the statistics are for photographers as a sub-group but in the period 2009/2010 1.25 million people in the UK sought help for mental health issues. 33% of all General Practitioner’s time was taken up by mental health disorders. At it’s current rate of increase, by 2020 depression will be the 2nd most disabling condition behind heart disease. 10 times more people suffer from major depression now than in 1945 and in the UK alone more than £100 billion is spent per annum on mental health care.

From Wikipedia:

The criteria below are based on the formal DSM-IV criteria for a Major Depressive Episode. In order to be diagnosed as suffering from a major depressive episode, the patient must meet the following criteria:

Over a two week period, the patient has consistently experienced five or more of the following symptoms, and these behaviours must be outside the parameters of the patient’s normal behaviour. Either depressed mood or decreased interest or pleasure must be one of the five (although both are frequently concomitant).

For the better part of nearly every day, the patient reports a depressed mood or appears depressed to others.

For most of nearly every day, interest or pleasure is markedly decreased in nearly all activities (noted by the patient or by others).

Although not dieting, there is a marked loss or gain of weight (such as 5% in one month) or appetite is markedly decreased or increased nearly every day.

Nearly every day the patient sleeps excessively, known as hypersomnia, or not enough, known as insomnia.

Nearly every day others can see that the patient’s activity is agitated or slow.

Nearly every day the person experiences extreme fatigue.

Nearly every day the patient feels worthless or inappropriately guilty. These feelings are not just about being depressed, they may be delusional.

Noted by the patient or by others, nearly every day the patient is indecisive or has trouble thinking or concentrating.

The patient has had repeated thoughts about death (other than the fear of dying), suicide (with or without a plan) or has made a suicide attempt.

Since my ill-fated photographic studio closed in 2009 I have experienced all nine of these symptoms virtually every day. I am still experiencing most of the nine symptoms every day and yet I am still trying hard to maintain an outward facade of success. It is beyond tiring and most days I fail. Today I am being honest about my failure.

Since I took up photography as a profession I have failed (by the definition of being a ‘professional’) and have therefore failed to be the essence of who I perceive myself to be. If I am not a professional photographer then I am just a photographer, a hobbyist.

Yet, in times of clarity I know I have the talent. I can be a professional photographer. I can be a great professional photographer.

When I need reminding why I do this I try to read the compliments on my website and take them on board; unlike the testament from Mrs. Smith in Blackpool on how Union Meerkat Insurance provided her with the best service ever, the testaments on my website are real and verifiable.

I became a professional photographer because that was my dream job. Being a professional photographer would also pave the way for my other dreams to come true. So far I have failed and am crushed by depression wondering, like Sally Brampton did; if I am not a professional photographer then who am I?

I know I am not a corporate slave. I am not a member of the service industry, neither am I a cook or a mechanic or a lorry driver. I am not a wedding photographer and neither am I a photographer that sells shoddy ‘portfolio’ photo-shoots to ill-informed want-to-be models for thirty quid a time.

I want to be a PROFESSIONAL, PUBLISHED, WORKING, ARTISTIC, photographer/artist.

But.

I sit here at the computer, lonely and depressed wondering who to contact next and how. I have the weight of fear, anxiety, procrastination and depression crushing me everyday and I have no one to turn to for help.

My counsellor is only words in my ear once a week. My closest friends don’t have the experience to help me and as yet, even though I’d be loathe to share my plans with peers I don’t even have the peers with enough experience to help me. I am the one they often turn to for advice!

So.

I sit here at the computer, lonely and depressed with a plan to turn everything around. A plan that I know will work, wondering who to contact next and how. Knowing that when I do know the right person to contact, I’ll have to put on my public face full of lies and stories of success when underneath, my current defeated self is cowering with fear, procrastination and depression.

I have spent hours on my plan. It is a story, in itself, of self-discovery. It is biographical. It is life changing. It is my dream, it is my dreams come true. It is altruistic in parts, it is self serving in parts. It is a wonderment and an abhorrence. It is a thank you and a fuck you. It is charity and it is greed.

I sit here at the computer, lonely and depressed with a plan to turn everything around…

I need encouragement when my motivation fails. I need someone to have belief in me when I fail to have belief in myself. I need someone to help financially support my plan for the next three months.

To paraphrase The Fantastic Four’s The Thing: “It’s clobbering ranting time” again; This is a majorly lengthy but hopefully worthwhile read that conveys an important message; I’d love to hear your opinions at the end please.

Sunday morning I was up early so decided to watch BBC’s The Big Questions. I completely enjoy an early morning religion and ethics debate as much as anyone and like Nicky Campbell’s no nonsense presenting style. What I didn’t expect was that along with a BBC Three programme presented by Nelufar Hedayat; ‘Music, Money and Hip-Hop Honeys’ and a BBC Panorama exposé on the sexualisation of children I’d end up ranting on my blog because all three programmes shared a similar but different theme and all three contained people that pissed me off beyond all belief.

I’ll start with Music, Money and Hip-Hop Honeys if I may as I watched it first.

As already stated it was presented by Nel Hedayat, a 20 something Afghan Muslim female with dual British identity living in North London. Possibly a feminist Nel was looking into the world of Hip-Hop Honeys; those big boobed, booty shaking young women that virtually every music video staring or produced by someone of an ethnic minority has to feature. You know the ones; those girls wrapped around a toned and baby-oiled Drum ‘n’ Bass DJ, Hip-Hop rapper or R&B artist.

Thoughtful, entertaining and mildly vacuous as most ‘serious’ documentaries tend to be on BBC Three, it sought to lift the lid on the scams, possible dangers and mostly impossible dreams that Hip-Hop Honeys face to star in big name (American) music video productions: Not being paid to star in your first ‘x’ amount of videos (to get experience of the scene and build a reputation), the directors, producers (and stars) that use video production as a way to pick up and sexually abuse women, the too far lengths some girls will go to to make it in an industry filled with other want-to-be ‘Honeys’; the mountains of fashionable clothes and shoes to buy, expensive trips to the US hoping to make it big there and the breast (and bum) implants the girls feel they need to achieve the ‘right’ look.

The rewards for ‘making it big’ are worth it. American honey Amber-Rose makes £12000 for a two day video shoot and £5750 just for turning up to an event!

Does this sound too familiar to any photographic models out there?

I liked Nel Hedayat! I really did, I’d like to spend a couple of hours with her in Starbucks shooting the shit over a latte or three. Although she didn’t completely sensationalise she did present a show that showed more negatives in the industry than positives. I’d like to know what she’d make of the modelling industry.

Nel showed a sleazebag producer/director that looked like one of the cell shaded skaters from Jet Set Radio. A scumbag who regularly offered girls paid gigs only to not pay them on the day (or ever).

Had I been there, on the day, with Nel, I think I’d have likely smacked him in the face (twice); not for being one of those trendy (possibly Japanese but probably Chinese wanting to be Japanese because it’s cooler) Orientals that wear cyberpunk Oakley’s (I think they were the MP3 ones) day and night, have Dragonball Z hair, wear cool T-shirts with Kanji logos and look like they’ve stepped right out of the latest issue of one of those directory sized manga comics but for being a scamming douchebag that thought that cheating girls out of money was both hilarious and righteous.

Nel showed an artist (using the term lightly) from the UK group K.I.G who openly admitted to sleeping with the ‘ho’s’ (his term for Hip-Hop Honeys; Urban Dictionary definition of Ho: Prostitute, Whore, Hooker, Tramp, Slut).

Nel interviewed two feminists: One that thought the video girls degraded all women, thought that the music videos featuring Honeys were similar to pornography in so much as a nurses uniform became the same kind of nurses uniform you’d see in a porn movie and that ultimately these videos made the divide between boys and girls one of the dominant male that had a skewed image of a female that was only needed for sex.

Feminist number two ran out the old cliché that often, the female image in the media made all females feel inferior with their bodies as they tried to emulate what they see. These would be the same women that think because they see in the media it must prove it’s the perfect body image.

Feminist number two also commented on the double standards promoted by the Hip-Hop/R&B video industry that a man could be clothed, rich, butt-ugly and fat but sexy while a woman had to be toned, free of cellulite, tan skinned, mostly undressed and beautiful to be sexy.

Nel interviewed the girl that had gone to a shoot only to be oiled (baby-oiled) up pre-shoot by the cameraman and then sexually assaulted.

As tragic, (at least for me), Nel interviewed members of the public outside a London club on Leicester Square and found a young black guy that stated; “You see these girls on TV and think all girls are the same, mmm, y’know what, I think I’ll have a go at that one then. Ah, so when you go out you think every girl’s a slag innit, ESPECIALLY when girls do dress like slags.”

Remember the above paragraph, we’re coming back to it!

In true documentary style Nel made no comment and the programme moved onto the guys that make the videos. Ultimately, I think Nel saw the allure that fame and money can bring and though she might not have before the documentary was made ended up on a video shoot herself.

Sunday mornings The Big Questions started with the question ‘Has political correctness left girls at risk?’ What that actually meant was that a Times report claimed that some UK police forces were so scared of being accused of racism they weren’t arresting Asian (Indian-Asian) gang members suspected of grooming very young girls for sex.

This was after 28-year-old Mohammed Liaqat and Abid Saddique, 27, were jailed at Nottingham crown court for raping and sexually abusing several girls, often after giving them alcohol or drugs.

In response to the Times report, former home secretary Jack Straw said “We need to get the Pakistani community to think much more clearly about why this is going on and to be more open about the problems that are leading to a number of Pakistani heritage men thinking it is OK to target white girls in this way. The young men were “fizzing and popping with testosterone” but girls from the Pakistani community were “off limits”, leading them to seek other outlets for their desires. They see these young women, white girls who are vulnerable, some of them in care … who they think are easy meat.”

As is usual for The Big Questions Nicky Campbell had a balanced panel comprising members of the Asian community, religious leaders and representatives of organisations set up to stop sexual abuse in all it’s flavours. Interestingly there was also, heavily disguised, a young woman that had previously fallen foul of one of these gangs.

Named as Emma, the disguised young woman said that she was twelve when she was first targeted. She said that she wasn’t targeted on a street corner, she wasn’t vulnerable. She said that the men responsible for grooming target girls at shopping centres, ice rinks, cinemas and arcades. Places where children go on Saturdays and why shouldn’t parents be allowed to let their children of twelve and thirteen go to the cinema with their friends?

She was first approached by boys that were aged about fourteen or fifteen, so not much older than her. They befriended her and she used to hang out with them in arcades at the shopping malls most Saturdays. They seemed okay, nice boys, nothing wrong with them. They then introduced her to older men, aged around eighteen or nineteen. Men who had cars. She didn’t see anything wrong with this as they were friends of friends. They didn’t just come up and approach her so they weren’t strangers.

They, the older boys seemed nice as well. As time went on and they started to groom her, the older ones, she started to see them in the town centre most days. She then got introduced to older men in their late twenties, “it’s a process” she said, “you just get passed up.”

She was further groomed for a while, it’s brainwashing, they basically controlled her through her mobile phone; “they threatened to firebomb my home with my parents inside if I told anyone what they’d done, shoot me with a pistol, rape my mother and kill my older brother if I told anyone.” They started to sexually assault her and sell her even though she didn’t know she was being sold, that’s what they were doing. “You can’t get away from these men” she said, “You can’t say I don’t think I want to come out to play today.” As time goes on the men responsible for the grooming pretend to form relationships with the girls to further entrap them. “They would give presents, vodka and cigarettes. But you soon end up paying them back by having to do what you have to do with man after man, in empty flats, in parks and down alleyways.”

When the police became involved it seemed that they saw Emma and other children involved as young promiscuous girls who had fallen out of relationships with these older men and then cried rape. “In this case there would be a lot of twelve and thirteen year old girls accusing thirty odd year old men of rape. That is not normal, thirteen year old girls don’t have relationships with men in their thirties and forties.”

It was stated that from thirteen towns and cities in the North and the Midlands, of fifty-six men jailed for this particular brand of sex offence in the past fourteen years, three were of Caucasian descent and the remaining fifty-three were Asian.

An argument was given for these sex crimes as a clash of cultures. Asian women in these mainly Muslim communities are seen as off limits and more modest. Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, a Muslim youth organisation has gone on record and stated that; “There are some Muslims who think that as long as these sex gangs aren’t targeting their own sisters and daughters the issue doesn’t affect them… These people think that white girls have fewer morals, are seen as trash and are less valuable, than our girls.”

Lee Jasper from the National Assembly Against Racism accused Jack Straw of dog-whistle politics and this was only an issue at this moment in time due to an upcoming by-election in Blackburn where he (Jack Straw) was standing for election.

During the programme, Mehdi Hasan from the New Statesman said that “not only were white girls targeted but also young Bangladeshi girls.” Culturally Bangladeshi’s are seen as a lower class than the Pakistani’s involved. Hasan went on to state, “this whole debate is skewed towards race, the gangs, religion. Surely this should be about vulnerable children, why are there thirteen year old girls on street corners? Where are their parents? Where are social services? Where are the local authorities?”

Remember the above paragraph, we’re coming back to it!

Fighting for the final word at the end of the debate, Lee Jasper (he from the National Assembly Against Racism), urged the audience to remember back to the fifties when the West Indian community first came to Britain en masse, the black men were all labelled as pimps and sexual predators. “That was proved to be false” said Lee “and the issue is wrong on this occasion. The kind of racism we’ve seen stoked on the back of this is totally unacceptable.”

Way to go Lee, gloss over the real tragedy and make this about white man racism!

Finally, I’d like to quickly mull over Panorama’s programme on the sexualisation of children:

After watching a pop music DVD with her daughter and finding some of the content overtly sexual newsreader and journalist Sophie Raworth decided to look into the sexualisation of children and produced the ‘Too Much Too Young’ documentary for BBC One’s Panorama.

The BBC website said: Provocative clothing, raunchy dancing on prime-time TV, access to pornography – Panorama examines the growing concern about the sexualisation of children in the UK. Sophie Raworth, a mother of three, goes behind the headlines to discover what images young people are being exposed to, and asks what impact the sexualised world is having on our children. Is too much, too young, putting them at risk?

Already concerned, our coalition government has begun a review into the commercialisation and sexualisation of children which will explore, among other things, whether rules should prevent companies marketing the likes of ‘Porn Star’ T-shirts and padded bras for little girls.

The Prime Minister David Cameron has gone on record stating, “You can’t cut children off from the commercial world but we should be able to help parents more in terms of trying to make sure that our children get a childhood and that they are not subject to unnecessary and inappropriate commercialisation and sexualisation too young.

Some businesses are dumping a waste that is toxic on our children. Products and marketing that can warp their minds and their bodies and harm their future. That can take away their innocence, which I know most parents would agree is so precious and worth defending. Children are being pushed into grown-up territory well before their time.

Girls are encouraged to dress like women, wear lingerie and worry about what they look like.”

On Mumsnet, the online parenting forum that has become a political force in its own right in Britain, the sexualisation of children is a hot topic – especially when it comes to some of the clothing.

Justine Roberts, the website’s co-founder, said that “many mothers were worried because they felt their daughters were being encouraged to be sexual in a way they were not mentally able to understand.”

“When you present a child with a pair of high-heeled shoes, it immediately puts her into a posture which makes her look more sexy. I mean her bum will stick out, her non-existent chest will stick out and she will start to sort of teeter around.”

So looking deeper into the possible idea that the media is responsible for making our children grow up too soon what did Sophie find?

Sophie found the consumerist campaigner Ed Mayo, he that campaigned about the stationary in a leading High St retailer emblazoned with the Playboy logo and successfully got it removed from their shelves. Sophie sent him off shopping and he returned with a T-shirt for kids with the slogan ‘Future Footballers Wife’ printed on the front and a padded bra for girls aged around 9.

Ed’s argument for the T-shirt was that it gave the wrong message and that being a WAG was no great ambition. About the bra, Ed questioned do we need them? “Starting an arms race among young girls for how big your boobs are is no way to start off life.”

Sophie went shopping on her own and found it incredibly difficult to find anything that sexualised children that wasn’t ambiguously either ‘in fashion’ or a ‘matter of taste’; Hotpants for nine year olds? Strappy leopard print dresses? Leopard print leggings? Spangly tu-tu party skirts?

Sophie interviewed Rachel Russell from the Glasgow Caledonian University who was involved in producing a report for the Scottish Government last year on the sexualisation of children. Rachel was especially looking for garments that drew attention to specific parts of the body associated with adult sexuality; breasts and buttocks. Searching thirty high street retailers and online the producers of the report actually found only a ‘limited number’ of products that concerned them. Rachel stated that you “really had to have your detective hat on to find them.”

With regards to items like padded bras Rachel said that children don’t see them as sexualised they see them as an item of comfort and that the padding also added an extra layer of ‘covering up’ or ‘hiding’ as you can’t see what’s underneath. “It’s the adults that see the bra as sexualised with the intention of adding size to the breasts and accentuating them.”

Rachel concluded with “It’s a perfect example of a moral panic.”

Ultimately the Scottish report concluded that it found that it is predominantly parents, not children, who worry about sexualisation and it is the sexualisation not of their own, but other people’s children that concerns them.

As a measure of how the sexual imagery in pop videos and published media along with teens and tweens dressing in a more adult and sexual manner affected them, Sophie contacted the Brook Advisory Centre, the leading UK advice service for children. What she was told was that although Britain has one of the worst records for teenage pregnancy in Europe the actual figures are “now the lowest they have ever been for twenty years.”

The way children now interact with one another was also examined; the internet, social networking sites, social gaming and mobile phones. Finding friends through social networking was seen as competitive (isn’t that the same for some adults?) and examples were given of teen boys posing topless for their display pictures and of one thirteen year old girl posing in her bikini.

A point was made that although the joining age for Facebook was thirteen a lot of children aged nine and above (with a marked increase for eleven year olds at secondary school) were joining by entering the wrong birth date. This is probably due to peer pressure.

Obviously, the internet and social networking opens up the grim possibility of grooming with many children throwing out the normal rules of safety by swapping messages and photos with complete strangers. Quite rightly, a child wouldn’t do this in the street but what makes it different over the internet?

With over half of British teens having their own computer and broadband access, pornography was discussed. A statistic was given that over a quarter of nine to sixteen year olds had surfed porn sites over the past year. A concerned parent said that it wasn’t something he’d have expected his son to be doing aged fourteen and was surprised that younger children had done so. The son, to his credit, when asked what his peers got from visiting porn sites said “when people see porn on the internet they think “I want to do this with a girl” and they get the view that “that’s what I’m going to be like, that’s what the girl’s going to be like” and that’s what they’re going to be doing”

Remember that last paragraph…

Back at the Brook Advisory Centre, regarding pornography, the spokesman said that they’d received calls asking ‘should I be shaving all my body hair off?’ and ‘should I be making the other person scream with pleasure? How do I make the other person scream?’ Brook went onto say that you have to give young people credit though; ‘they do know that pornography isn’t real’ and that it is the responsibility of parents to be able to talk candidly about sex and pornography if they’re willing to give their children unmonitored web access.

Here, our government wants to step in and make ISP’s change their policies towards pornography and instead of offering uncensored access to the web, provide a censored but opt-in service if you do want to view porn.

Sophie looked into the growing trend of sexting; using text messages to send explicit messages and pictures to one another. In British law it is illegal for anyone to own, produce or distribute explicit images of anyone under the age of eighteen(1).

Sophie concluded that although she started off worried by the sexy images she saw on her daughters DVD she realised that although she could stop the DVD at home she couldn’t stop the outside world. She said that most children were more ‘adult’ about the choices they made when choosing clothing, friends online and what sites to visit than perhaps she’d give them credit for and left the final words to Chloe, a thirteen year old dancer. When asked should she (Sophie) be worried about the images her children were seeing and the clothing they wanted to wear? Should she be worried that her daughter was growing up too fast?

Chloe – “Well if she’s making the right choices, like y’know her skirt’s not see through, her top’s not see through, her skirt’s not about half way up her backside. You shouldn’t lock her up inside. If she makes the right choices in life, you shouldn’t be worried, because you teach them how to behave don’t you, yer mums and dads.”

Wise words indeed!

So what is the common denominator? What links these three programmes and why should you or I care?

Primarily, if you look back to the paragraphs I asked you to remember the common denominator is respect, or rather the lack of. I’ve spoken in a previous post on this blog about how a model provides a service and how one should separate the model in the media and the woman that the model is when not working. Just because her picture is public domain doesn’t mean the woman is any more than you’d expect a taxi driver to automatically offer you a lift in his private car.

Men should be able to separate the hip-hop honey on screen from the dancer in her private life. Just because she dresses and dances in a sexual manner doesn’t mean that she has loose morals and should be approached either on set or in real life with anything other than the same respect that you’d show your sister. You would show your sister respect right? No matter how your sister was dressed you want her shown respect by others right?

Whether a girl is a model, a hip-hop honey or a fashionable teen or pre-teen she has the right to dress how she chooses and has a right to respect. Whatever she wears to a club for example or to go out on the town with her mates, be it see through, be it revealing or be it totally minimalistic it is her choice and doesn’t automatically mean that she’s a slag or that she’s sexually promiscuous.

What it does mean, is that she’s chosen to dress in a way that she feels comfortable. Whether she’s driven by what she see’s in fashionable magazines or on the catwalk, whether she’s driven by popular media or peer pressure it is her right to dress in any way she chooses to.

Ask any woman and the majority would state that they feel at their best when dressed in a way they either feel sexy or beautiful. They might be at their most comfortable in sloppy tracksuits and slippers while bumming around the house, they might feel more competitive and professional at work wearing a suit or smartly dressed but to go out ALL women generally make an effort to look as good as possible within their social circle.

Whether a girl is nine, nineteen or ninety. To go out or to be seen one wants to dress like ones peers. Whether the girl goes clubbing to the trendiest dub-step clubs and dresses as she sees the dancers dress in various music videos or whether the woman dresses to go to the local lawn bowls club she will dress as comfortably and accordingly as she is able.

Men, for fucks sake, should respect that and respect that she’s probably dressing for herself and not for you. She’s not ‘asking for it’. She’s not automatically a ‘ho’ wanting you to grind your prick up her backside. She’s probably dressing like her friends do and fitting in.

Respect seems to be a thing of the past and perhaps, along with other social etiquette should be taught at school.

Sex education shouldn’t be only involved with the mechanics of reproduction and how to avoid STD’s it should deal with far wider issues like social interaction between boys and girls and how to show one another respect. It should teach boys that girls are people before they are objects of sexual desire and should teach girls to respect themselves and their bodies rather than giving in to peer pressure and throwing their virginity at the first decent six-pack that buys them a couple of bottles of alcopop. Books like (but not plugging) Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venusshould be part of the school curriculum just as much as Romeo and Juliet and To Kill a Mockingbird are.

Instead of being a small part of the biology or science curriculum, make sex education and social interaction a mandatory part of education itself. Don’t just tell children that teen pregnancy is wrong, provide social proof and statistics. Go out onto council estates and show children in a classroom the living proof of ruined lives. Show children the babies that are victims of neglect and show children the severely depressed mothers that have thrown away their lives for a shag in the toilets of a local club. Show girls the victims of physical abuse by men and show boys the abusers rotting in prison cells.

It’s a fact that children are growing up faster now than thirty years ago. If not physically then definitely mentally. With the internet and cable television children today have the opportunity to learn far more about the world and growing up than ever before.

When I was a child the only way I could learn was through school or through books I was given. Until I was old enough to buy my own books I could only tell you information from the books I owned and the subjects I was taught. Aged nine, aged eleven, I could tell you nothing about fashion in London or Japan. I couldn’t tell you about gender equality (but I had been taught respect and manners), I couldn’t tell you about the production of alcohol or the ingredients of Absinthe.

I could however tell you all about sharks, I could even tell you their Latin names. However dated it seems now I could tell you all about dinosaurs… At least I could tell you about what we knew about dinosaurs then. Who knew, (or even imagined), when I was a child, that we’d later discover that dinosaurs were actually brightly coloured, covered in feathers, lived in social groups and evolved into birds?

Now, with a click of a button a child can answer most any question posed to it through Google or Wikipedia. Fashion isn’t a trendy thing Londoners do on Carnaby Street it’s a thing that children can do in any village in any county in the country. Fashion is global. Fashion is on the internet. A teen isn’t limited to Mods and Rockers anymore, a teen isn’t limited to the fashion of it’s peers. If it chooses a teen can become a follower of the Gothic Lolita style in Japan because it’s all there on the web. The designers, the look and indeed the clothing through online retailing.

Of course children are going to grow up faster and appear more adult in many cases. We should be letting these children learn and grow up as they and their peers dictate. What we should be doing as parents and peers is respecting these choices but guiding and teaching along the way.

In areas where there are major cultural differences as discussed in the Asian grooming section of this essay respect should be taught there also. The right to respect another culture and to live within that culture with respect. What right does a Muslim man have to assume that just because a Western girl doesn’t read the Qur’an or wear the hijab she is any less chaste or moralistic than his sisters or cousins?

We are a Christian country and a Muslim living here should respect that in the way that we respect Muslims enough to let them worship in their own ways here. Chastity is not only a Muslim dictate it is a universal dictate for some, it transcends religion, it is part of most religions. A Muslim man living in a Christian country has to respect that.

Regardless of area/race or religion involved, a nine or thirteen year old girl should be able to walk the streets safely. In fact she has a right to be safe. Regardless of religion or race she deserves respect.

I would go as far to say that if cultural differences present too much of a problem then cultural differences shouldn’t exist. One strike and out… If your religion allows you to disrespect the morals and the law of your host country then you should lose your right to stay there. Regardless of status, regardless of family in the UK, regardless of the dangers in your country of origin. If you are found guilty of a major crime even though it might be because of your home countries moral, religious or cultural differences then you forfeit the right to live here.

Of course, the government will never implement so severe a punishment. As shown in this essay the government panders to moral outrage and political correctness. Heaven forbid that the government take a strong stance and address problems at their roots. The school curriculums will not change, the policies on political asylum, immigration and deportation will not change and the laws will not change to remove the ambiguity between consent, implied consent and the word no.

What the government will do is request report after report seemingly to do something to stem the moral outrage cried by people too weak to control and teach their own children what is right and wrong. The ‘nanny’ state will remove the stimulus because it is easier to outlaw sexuality than it is to change the way society is crumbling with respect to um, respect, education and social awareness.

It is easier to ban pornography than it is to realise that it has it’s place in society and to teach that society a way that it can use it responsibly and intelligently.

It is easier to ban sexuality in the media than it is to teach parents the responsibility of moderation and self censorship.

It is easier to police and govern retail and manufacturing than it is to teach the culture about respecting peoples right to wear what they choose without recrimination or judgement.

It is sadly easier for the government to stop the sexualisation of children than it is to remove the problem of cultural and religious difference that the government itself created.

It is a sad sad world we live in!

I’d like to address one final point. I for one admit to seeing beauty in children. I see beauty everywhere and refuse to blinker my views to only that which is socially acceptable. I find babies interesting. I find the gangly, long limbed pre-teens running in the park with innocence on their faces beautiful. I find adolescents on the verge of adulthood beautiful. I find teenagers beautiful. I am a photographer. I see with my eyes rather than with scared, politically correct, and often wrong judgements. I don’t see with my penis or with a sexual appetite. I don’t in any sense find children sexually attractive. I just see beauty. I see a photograph.

Researching and writing this essay has taken much time over three days. I have read many forums dealing with sexuality, religion, culture and parenting. I have read articles written in America and the UK. I have read countless threads by concerned parents and have not seen this mentioned anywhere which kind of confuses me immensely.

Teen and Pre-Teen Pageants/Dancing competitions?

This is just about the worst case scenario I can image for the argument to govern child sexuality and the case for worrying about children growing up too fast. On all the forums, in all the articles, in all the governmental and legal blathering I’ve read why has no-one mentioned this? Why?

Teens but more often pre-teens caked in make-up; foundation, blusher, lipstick, false eye-lashes, false nails and dyed hair? Pre-teens dressed in high heels, bikinis, little black dresses and ball gowns. Pre-teens paraded on a stage like real life dolls where anyone with the entrance fee, paedophiles and sexual predators alike, can sit and watch. Pre-teens often coerced by their parents into living a life their parents didn’t have or having parents living their lives through their children.

What the fuck? Ban these pageants… Or, if the world must have beauty competitions for children and I’ve already said that yes, children can be beautiful, legislate the competitions. Govern the audience, make the organisers accountable, ban the fakery and let these competitions be about the child’s natural beauty and skills.

You know what… I might just start looking into this legislation myself!

(1) The law is a little muddy here with the words ‘indecent’ and ‘explicit’ being open to interpretation by the judge and jury using a set of guidelines as defined by law. Therefore, nude photography of a minor (anyone aged under eighteen) can be legal as long as the image is not considered indecent or sexually explicit. To confuse matters further; be careful, sexually explicit images of a fully clothed model under the age of eighteen can also be considered indecent and/or sexually explicit and may therefore be illegal too.

In the case of ‘sexting’, it is perfectly legal between a married couple aged sixteen or seventeen as long as the pictures are for private use only. Images of anyone over the age of eighteen could fall foul of the obscene publications act depending on their explicitness and content.

For example; a consenting couple using their mobile phones to photograph a private session of BDSM involving actual damage to the buttocks and breasts could be prosecuted for possession of images deemed illegal under the current obscene publications act and both parties could be added to the sex offenders list.

To clarify; the law regarding photography of anyone under the age of eighteen in any way remotely considered glamorous is a minefield and best avoided completely.